National Shooting Sports Foundation versus Letitia James  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE has written, often, that anti-gun left wingers know they cannot get the 2nd Amendment repealed so they try end-runs around it.  

One common end-run is ‘Law through Litigation.’  For example, if the anti-gun left could financially bury the gun industry in lawsuits and litigation, they could shut it down by bringing lawsuits in Democrat controlled states in front of Left-leaning judges.  This could be almost as effective as outright gun ban legislation.        

To offset the many frivolous lawsuits brought in pursuit of ‘Law through Litigation,’ the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed in 2005 to protect the firearms industry from being destroyed by litigation costs and hostile judgments.  It protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for misuse of their products in situations over which they have no control.  This makes sense since gun manufacturers sell firearms to distributors who then sell to local gun stores.  Gun stores, in turn, sell firearms to the general public in accordance with federal and state laws which include a NICS background check.  If each step followed the law, why should anyone be liable?  For example, if a person in a Ford fires a Colt in a drive-by shooting, should Ford be held responsible?  Of course not.  So, why should Colt be held responsible?  

 But under PLCAA the legal gun industry can be held liable for damages resulting from:

defective products,

breach of contract,

criminal misconduct,

other actions for which they are directly responsible.

negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe that a firearm was intended for use in a crime,

knowingly violating a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms and the “violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”  (This is called the predicate exemption.)

The ‘predicate exemption’ makes the gun industry liable if they violate a state law.  Taking broad advantage of that, states like – dare I say it – New York pass state laws in violation of the PLCAA and then cite the ‘predicate exemption’ to sue gun manufacturers for violating that state law*. 

Such is the situation in the case of the National Shooting Sports Foundation versus Letitia James (NSSF v. James).  It challenges New York’s General Business Law § 898, which attempts to circumvent PLCAA. § 898 would make gun industry members liable for criminals’ misdeeds, on the theory that they “unreasonably” made, sold or marketed a firearm that was later misused in New York.  Then NY Governor Andrew Cuomo described § 898 as an attempt to “reinstate the public nuisance liability for gun manufacturers” that Congress prohibited in the PLCAA, in order to “right the wrong” that Cuomo believed Congress committed when it enacted that federal law.  [I’m not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that no state can (legally) pass a law to nullify a federal law, when they contradict.  I believe there was a civil war fought about that.] 

In addition, since almost all guns are transferred through interstate commerce at some point, out-of-state companies are forced to tailor nationwide conduct to satisfy New York’s standards.  Thus, the NY law would seem to violate the Commerce Clause. Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the power over interstate commerce only to Congress**.

Then, there is the overlooked issue of the firearms industry being important to law enforcement and national defense.***  In passing PLCAA, Congress found national security implications in efforts to bankrupt the industry.  The industrial base that provides firearms to citizens also equips police and military forces.  (Of course, the same people that want to do away with 2A also want to ‘defund the police’ and they are not wild about our armed forces so they view this as a twofer.)

The interesting problem is that the Ninth Circuit (covering the West Coast - the U.S.’ most far left circuit) and the D.C. Court of Appeals (equally far left) both ruled that similar laws did not qualify under the PLCAA’s “predicate exemption.”  However – true to form – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that New York’s law did qualify under PLCAA.  So, the law is currently legal in New York but similar laws are not legal in D.C. and on the ‘Left Coast.’  The case has now been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) asking it to review the case.  When two or more circuits disagree on an issue, SCOTUS is more inclined to take up the case.

*In a unanimous SCOTUS decision (even Kooky justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed) the Supreme Court ruled in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that PLCAA’s exceptions cannot be read so broadly that they “swallow most of the rule.”

**In a similar attempt to ignore the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, proposed NY Assembly bill A00929 wishes to allow the NY Attorney General to prosecute people for legal sales made in other states to New York residents that do not go through the NY bureaucracy. A state cannot criminalize an act done in another state where that act was legal.  For example: a dry state cannot punish a legal resident who crossed to a wet state and had a drink there. 

***President Trump has spent the past year trying to get things necessary for national security back to being made in the USA.  (Oh wait, the people that don’t like 2A and want to defund the police don’t like Trump, either.) 

A PRIVILEGE OR A RIGHT!  by Bohdan Rabarsky

If you’ve ever driven across state lines in America, did you think about what would happen if you were stopped for a moving violation or any traffic infraction?  Would your New York State driver’s license be valid? Of course it is!  Even though a driver’s license isn’t a Constitutional right and only a privilege, it’s covered under the United States Constitution.

How’s that you ask?

Even though the Founding Father’s couldn’t possibly have envisioned the automobile when they wrote the Constitution over two hundred years ago, crossing state lines is included in Article IV, Section I; “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Americans can move freely between states even though they have different, state laws. It would be impractical - almost impossible - for people to obtain a driver’s license for every state they traveled through, so every state recognizes the driver’s licenses of all the other states.  

If that applies to privileges such as driver’s licenses, shouldn’t it also apply to a Constitutional Right such as the 2nd Amendment? The right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment of the U S Constitution, so why isn’t your New York State Concealed Carry Permit valid in the other 49 states? Does New York State reciprocate with the other 49 states in accepting their Concealed Carry Permits? Well, let’s see what the 2nd Amendment Foundation’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map says and shows about New York State.

States that don’t honor any other state’s Conceal Carry permits are: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia. Isn’t it interesting that 6 of the states that were included in the original 13 colonies that broke away from Britain, now deny 2nd Amendment Rights to those entering their state.  And of further irony, New York only agreed to approve the U S Constitution if a Bill of Rights was considered by Congress.

Since New York doesn’t honor other states’ pistol permits, there are only a few states that honor New York’s Conceal Carry permit: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Other states’ regulations vary from state to state.   

To defeat our own state government’s limitations, many New York State residents obtain Utah and Pennsylvania conceal carry permits, as they’re easy to obtain; you can do the process online and they cover quite a few of the lower 48 states, especially along the east coast.

Either way, do your due diligence and check out the states you plan on travelling through. Not all of them abide by the Constitution’s Article IV, Section I and recognize another state’s Concealed Carry Permits.  The Second Amendment Foundation is a great source for information.  Handgunlaw.us

While you are here, take a second and check out this political cartoon which says-it-all.

A.F. Branco for 3/3/2026 | A.F. Branco | Comics | ArcaMax Publishing

From Breitbart News

On Thursday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced his signing of a memorandum ending the blanket gun-free policies on military bases in the United States.

He made clear that the right to self-defense comes from God rather than government.

Hegseth noted, “The Second Amendment of our Constitution enshrines the right of all citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves, their families, and their countrymen.” He pointed out that “warfighters” are “no less entitled to keep and bear arms than any other American.”

Yet, our bases across the country have become “gun-free zones,” he said.

Hegseth made clear the memo he is signing will ensure that “service members will be able to have their Second Amendment rights on post.”

The memo signed by Hegseth “directs installation commanders to allow requests for personal protection to carry a privately owned firearm.”

He said, “Affirming your God-given right to self-protection is what I’m signing today.”

Twisted Legal Logic  by Tom Reynolds

In the case NYSRPA v Bruen, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reinforced that ‘arms’ are protected by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution (2A).  Once something is classified as ‘arms,’ there has to be an historical precedent for banning them and that ban must go back to 1791, when 2A was passed*.  (In other words, 2A should be interpreted by what it meant when it was passed, not what someone wishes it meant by their own modern standards.)

Immediately after the Bruen decision in 2022, the gun grabbers on the Left tried various strategies to work around Bruen, including trying to ban anything that looked like a gun, including toy guns – and also tasers and stun guns.

Massachusetts passed a law banning tasers.  The constitutionality of that state law was challenged in Caetano v Massachusetts when Massachusetts argued that tasers did not exist in 1791 and, thus, were not covered by 2A.  (Imagine applying that same logic to the 1A right of ‘free speech;’ radio, tv, internet, telephones, etc. would not enjoy free speech protections since they were not in existence in 1791.)

SCOTUS used that Massachusetts’ Taser law for Skeet practice.  SCOTUS shot it down in courteous legal terms that basically said, “can’t you guys read.” 

SCOTUS rejected the ‘not in existence in 1791’ idea as it had previously ruled that weapons are protected even if they were not in existence at the Founding. As a result of SCOTUS’ decision, tasers should be legal in Massachusetts and since this was a SCOTUS decision, tasers should be legal nationwide**.  However, saying it doesn’t make it so.

New York City banned civilian possession of stun guns and tasers, not because they didn’t read Caetano but just because they can pass a law and if you don’t like it you can sue NY City - if you have the money for a long legal case to prove the law was unconstitutional.

Calce v City of New York, (backed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition) did just that and sued NY City.  On March 25th, Calce was argued before a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court.  (The court directly below SCOTUS.) 

It seems as if it should have been an easy case after Caetano but do not underestimate the ability of lawyers on the public payroll to run up their opponents legal bill with twisted logic.  NY City’s lawyers - and some of the justices on the court - seemed intent on working around Caetano to keep the taser ban alive. 

SCOTUS had previously ruled that arms were protected by 2A.  Once an ‘arm’ is protected by 2A, to create an exception, the burden is on the government to prove a 2A protected weapon is not in common use***.  In other words, the burden of proof was on the government, not on the people.  

NYC’s strategy in Calce is to flip the burden of proof and force Calce to prove that a weapon is in common use before it can be classified as ‘arms’ - and protected by the 2nd Amendment.’  (This would effectively eliminate any newly introduced weapon from being classified as arms because, being new, they would not be in common use.)  Under Rule 56, if Calce fails to properly support an assertion of fact (that tasers are in common use) the court may grant Summary Judgment to NY City. This would leave the law in place and the petitioners would have to start over.

All is not lost.  Some observers believe the judges did not sound fully sold on NY City’s theory that stun guns are outside the Second Amendment. At one point, a judge openly suggested having “a hard time” with the argument that stun guns or tasers are not within the meaning of protected arms, especially given that they are less lethal than handguns.

But the issue is whether courts below SCOTUS get to nullify Bruen by turning every arms-ban case into a battle over plaintiff-supplied statistics before the government ever has to prove its ban is constitutional.

SCOPE will keep you informed on this issue.

*The Left likes to argue that 2A protection only goes back to 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed.  This would allow them to use Jim Crow laws as justification for banning a weapon.

**In New York State, tasers are:

• Legal to own: Yes, for self-defense.

• Age requirement: 18+ (some sources suggest 21+ for certain purchases)

• Prohibited locations: Schools, courthouses, airports, government buildings, 

• public transit

• Use: Only in reasonable self-defense; misuse can lead to criminal charges.

***In Caetano, Justice Alito’s concurrence pointed to evidence that hundreds of thousands of stun guns had been sold to private citizens. 

Two Flags  by Bohdan Rabarsky

For some, the thought of the 2nd Amendment conjures up gun rights and hunting privileges. For others, it’s self-defense against an intruder wanting to harm you or your family. (For those on the Left, it’s called a mistake.)  In any case, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted in many ways depending on who is doing the interpreting.

James Madison is the father of the Bill of Rights, which is the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution.  Madison drew tremendous influence from 16th century philosopher John Locke on topics such as Separation of Powers, Limited Government, Religious Freedom and Natural Rights. Madison and Locke believed in fundamental principles of liberty, including the idea that individuals possess inalienable rights to life and liberty. These rights, of life and liberty, weren’t afforded by government but were God-given rights with which we were born.  Fundamental rights of self-defense are amongst the God-given rights you were born with and not enabled by government or the 2nd Amendment. Government can list them & protect them, but our rights are not theirs to take away.  

The Don’t Tread on Me Flag (Gadsden Flag) was created during the American Revolution and is often mentioned when the 2nd Amendment is discussed. That flag is an historical symbol of liberty, individual rights and defiance against an over reaching authority. In essence it says that we have our rights and trying to take them away will be like stepping on a rattlesnake.  It is quite often presented at 2nd Amendment rallies aimed at fighting for gun rights in defiance of anti-gun government legislation. 

To the gun grabbers on the Left, the Gadsden Flag symbolizes their greatest fear.  If they trample on our rights, under 2nd Amendment protections, we have the means to protect those rights.  The Left prefers unarmed masses, such as currently in Iran, where the common people do not have the means to defend their rights against a tyrannical government, which restricts their religious liberty rights, too. 

A lesser-known flag was the Pine Tree Flag featuring a green pine tree and slogan “An Appeal to Heaven.”  It symbolizes an appeal to divine justice when earthly authority fails; resistance against tyranny.  The phrase “An Appeal to Heaven” originates from John Locke’s philosophy, justifying revolution when no earthly authority exists to settle grievances. But resistance needs the means to resist; hence, the 2nd Amendment. 

The Pine Tree Flag still has meaning.  In recent times, it was displayed by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is deeply religious and has explicitly stated that his Christian faith is the most important aspect of his life. He is a Baptist whose political worldview is derived directly from the Bible.  He also believes in the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is a check that ensures we have a choice that was not given to us by government, but a choice that is protected from government. What government can give, government can take, hence the Founding Fathers enshrined the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights as a preexisting right that government cannot take away.  Defense of both our personal rights and our constitutionally given rights are God given rights, not rights provided by the 2nd Amendment. Never the two should be confused.  

James Madison was also a strong proponent of religious liberty, as he wrote the 1st Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment. 

The 2026 S.C.O.P.E.  Annual Members
Meeting is Saturday, April 18th.

The Member's Meeting will start at 10:00AM followed by lunch at noon.

Your January/February issue of the Firing Lines has the RSVP form on page 4.

You must RSVP for the meeting. The form is also attached HERE.

Please mail your RSVP by April 6th.

*Also, the Ballot for At-Large directors is inside the back cover of your January/February Firing Lines. Please vote for 4 of the listed candidates and mail your ballot (ballot only, addressed to SCOPE Ballot) postmarked no later than April 10th

March is Women’s History Month  by Bohdan Rabarsky

The history of women’s rights in America often starts with the 20th century when Congress, led by men, enacted laws to give women the same rights as men. But there is an earlier law – a Constitutional Amendment – that may be the most empowering of them all.  There is a saying that God created men (& women) but Samuel Colt made them equal.  The 2nd Amendment made that possible. 

Let’s look at some of the more important ones that were enacted into law in the 20th century:

1920-the 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.

1963-Equal Pay Act, prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex.

1972-Title IX in federal programs pertaining to women’s sports and academic opportunities.

1974-Equal Credit Opportunity Act-allowed women to apply for credit and loans without a male co-signer.

But the one that really made them equal didn’t require an act of Congress in the 20th century.  It protects women’s rights and it goes back to December 15, 1791; the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is taking on new meaning in the 21st century. 

For years, the right to bear arms focused on a “well-regulated militia” and since women were not, historically, a part of that militia, they were an afterthought.  The Bruen case and its successors took the emphasis off militia and emphasized a historical context. 

At first glance, relying on historical precedence is a problem since, in 1791, women did not have the same rights as men.  For instance, married women had no legal identity, independent of their husbands.  But even today’s most far left, anti-2A judge would not dare rule against a woman’s equal right to “keep and bear arms.”  The Bill of Rights doesn’t differentiate by gender, so I’m pretty sure that women’s 2A rights are as safe as men’s 2A rights - which in New York State, they are far less safe than they should be.     

When a woman becomes a single Mom, sometimes they’ll turn to organizations and to social services to survive.  They also rely on the legal system to protect them from abusive partners. But an order of protection or restraining order is a piece of paper and doesn’t offer very much protection.  And of course, there is the unrelated criminal who is always willing to take advantage of anyone they see as easy prey.

Where a protection order is just a legal piece of paper, a firearm can stop an intruder or abuser dead in their tracks - no pun intended.  In many situations, women need to take the lead in protecting themselves and their family. If trouble arises, depending on where they live, getting help from a 911 call may take many minutes, when all they have are seconds. Women are the first line of defense against intruders while waiting for law enforcement to arrive, so they need to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.  An armed woman is no longer easy prey. 

The fastest growing demographic of gun ownership in America is women, which can be viewed as sort of a "first responder" mentality.  With a gun in hand, no one could accuse women of being the weaker sex. 

When listing the laws that empowered women, the 2nd Amendment should be prominently displayed.

Monkey See Monkey Do  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE often writes how one blue state follows another blue state when it comes to laws restricting our 2nd Amendment protected rights.  We have excellent examples of that with bills recently passed by the Virginia legislatures.

Virginia’s SB749 has been approved by the legislatures and is awaiting the expected signature of Virginia’s radically Left governor.*  Below shows the similarities between SB749 and existing law in New York State.

Notes:

Virginia’s SB749 is shown in black, starting with VA-    

NY States existing law is shown under Virginia’s in red, starting with NYS-

In a few cases, one state does not have a comparable law so it is shown only with the heading VA- or NYS- and nothing after it.

The following comes from the sections dealing with the definition of Assault Rifles.  There are similar sections dealing with other Assault Weapons such as pistols, shotguns, etc., but you will get the point!

VA- Any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

NYS A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree when that person knowingly possesses an assault weapon.

VA- Assault firearm means

NYS- Assault weapon means

VA- A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds;

NYS-

VA- A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine…and that has one or more of the following characteristics:

NYS- A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

VA- A folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock;

NYS- A folding or telescoping stock

VA- A thumbhole stock or pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;

NYS- A thumbhole stock.  A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

VA- A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

NYS- A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand

VA- A grenade launcher 

NYS- A grenade launcher

VA- A threaded barrel capable of accepting: 

NYS- A threaded barrel designed to accommodate:

VA- A muzzle brake, 

NYS- A muzzle break

VA- A muzzle compensator, 

NYS- A muzzle compensator

VA- a sound suppressor 

NYS-

VA- A flash suppressor

NYS- A flash suppressor

VA-

NYS A  bayonet mount

VA-

NYS A grenade launcher

New York State likes to be first with new restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights, but keep your eye on other states.  If another blue state comes up with a new approach to encroaching on 2A, you can be sure New York State will follow. 

*Virgina’s new Governor Abigail Spanberger gave the Democrat’s response to Trump’s State-of-the-Union speech.  She started saying she would report “plainly and honestly.”  Her first point was to attack Trump’s tariff’s as raising the cost of living for Americans.  She omitted that she has introduced more than 50 proposals, new rules and taxes: dog walking and grooming tax; guns and ammunition tax; new income tax brackets; storage facility tax; dry cleaning tax; home repair tax; electric leaf blowers’ tax; electric landscaping equipment tax; tax on deliveries made by Amazon, Uber Eats, FedEx and UPS orders.  She was elected as posing as a moderate!   

Annual Member Meeting To the SCOPE Membership, SCOPE leadership is pleased to announce that this year’s guest speaker will be GOP/Conservative gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman. The latest edition of Firing Lines includes an RSVP notice*. Please mail your RSVP by April 6th to reserve your seat.  SCOPE President Each year, SCOPE brings its membership together twice to celebrate and support the defense of the Second Amendment with fellow like-minded individuals. These gatherings include the All Members Meeting in April and the SCOPE Banquet in September. The All Members Meeting is fast approaching and will be held on Saturday, April 18, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Moose Lodge in Montour Falls, New York. This is a great opportunity to meet Mr. Blakeman and learn more about his platform. We hope to fill the room for Mr. Blakeman, so please submit your RSVP as soon as possible. Lunch will also be provided. I hope to see you there. With All Honor and Respect, John R. Elwood

Oregon, Initiative Petition 28  by Tom Reynolds

Non-voting hunters may believe that their hunting right is safe from the radical Left’s gun control efforts.  They forget that things one could never have imagined a few years ago often become commonplace in Democrat dominated states.  If you doubt that… 

In Oregon, Initiative Petition 28, would outlaw hunting, fishing and a host of other things, including cattle ranching. Backers of this measure say they have gathered about 105,000 of the required 117,173 valid signatures, which must be turned in by July 2.

Writing at Northwest Sportsman, editor Andy Walgamott explains, “Initiative Petition 28 cloaks itself as an anti-animal cruelty campaign, but in reality it would essentially criminalize hunting, fishing and trapping in the Beaver State, put ranchers out of business, and prevent you from even raising your own chickens for the table or trapping rodents damaging your home or business.”

Like New York State, Oregon is a Democrat dominated state and many gun owners use the excuse for non-voting, “my vote won’t make a difference.”  Or in this case in Oregon, “Initiative 28 is so extreme it will never pass.”  We estimate only about one-third of the gun owners in NY State will vote and I’ll bet Oregon is similar. 

In order to add credibility to this animal cruelty’ proposal and seem less like hypocrites targeting just guns, they added fishing and cattle ranching to the list of no-no’s.  That could be their undoing.  This one bill manages to antagonize everyone not on the radical Left.   

Since the Democrats are concerned about ‘affordability,’ have they considered that this will force meat eaters to import beef from other states, thus raising prices?  As a solution, they might offset this by making meat eating illegal in Oregon!  Couldn’t happen?  I started this saying, “things one could never have imagined a few years ago often become commonplace in the Democrat dominated states.”

Whether or not you like Trump, this was a great line: “When the world needs courage, daring, vision and inspiration, it is still turning to America. And when God needs a nation to work his miracles, He knows exactly who to ask.”

The problem is, it’s the Oregon Democrats who proposed Initiative Petition 28 that are showing “courage, daring, vision and inspiration.”  I don’t believe they are doing God’s work, but the Left doesn’t care.  They don’t need God to manufacture a miracle,’ they just need gun owners to continue to stay home on election day.

______________________________________________

For those gun owners who avoid registering to vote in order to avoid Jury Duty, Claudine Ewing on WGRZ points out that, “New York draws potential jurors from five source lists, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Taxation and Finance, Department of Labor, Department of Social Services and the Board of Elections.”

Basically, if you an adult living in NYS, you are going to be on most of those lists, unless you are an illegal alien.  In that case, you can probably figure out a way to vote and still avoid Jury Duty; after all, no ID is required to vote.